On 4/26/2022 7:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:32 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/26/2022 7:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:35 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
You just presented an elaborate presentation involving N
branching steps
and counted all 2^N branches as equal. That's branch counting
and it's
known to not be compatible with QM. The MWI can be taken to
be QM
without collapse and this is known to be a consistent theory
It would seem that you are claiming that QM without collapse is
not based on Everett's ideas. If you claim that such a theory
exists and is consistent, then you really should present that
theory, and point out that it has nothing to do with Everett, or
with obtaining every outcome of a trial on different branches.
My impression is that you do not have any worked-out theory --
you just throw arbitrary objections to my working through the
consequences of Everett's approach to quantum mechanics. I have
shown that many problems exist with Everettian QM. If you agree,
and are prepared, with me, to throw out Everett, then we agree,
and there is nothing more to be argued about (at least, until you
present some different complete theory).
I think Everett's idea was just to get rid of wave-function
collapse and instead assert that the apparently incompatible
results of an experiment were just different entanglements of
one's brain/instrument with different superposed components of the
state of the system measured. This is all consistent with the
Copenhagen interpretation, except in CI all but one of the
orthogonal components is discarded. Decoherence has cast some
light on why the components quickly become orthogonal and why they
become orthogonal only in certain bases.
An important component of Everett's idea was that quantum evolution
was unitary. That gave centrality to the Schrodinger equation. If one
wants to persist with unitary evolution, one cannot avoid the
Schrodinger equation. This has a number of consequences for the
theory. One is that the theory is deterministic -- there are no
probabilities, and all outcomes of an experiment are, in some real
sense, equivalent. That leads to the consequences that I have pointed
out. If Saibal wants to avoid those consequences, then he has to
abandon the idea of unitary evolution and the Schrodinger equation. I
think Saibal would be reluctant to go down that path, so he is left
with an inconsistent mess.
I don't see that it's inconsistent. It's just like QBism. You get a
result and you renormalize the wf. Whether the other outcomes occur in
some platonic world, is irrelevant.
Brent
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTrDxVdKP5mZpbMZyaf5fYhOZm96MqoJR6WXu4piTnz_Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTrDxVdKP5mZpbMZyaf5fYhOZm96MqoJR6WXu4piTnz_Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3813d149-ae7c-114f-c2a2-d3a6f341f62e%40gmail.com.
